The density of anthropogenic features explains seasonal and behaviour-based functional responses in selection of linear features by a social predator

Abstract

Anthropogenic linear features facilitate access and travel efficiency for predators, and can influence predator distribution and encounter rates with prey. We used GPS collar data from eight wolf packs and characteristics of seismic lines to investigate whether ease-of-travel or access to areas presumed to be preferred by prey best explained seasonal selection patterns of wolves near seismic lines, and whether the density of anthropogenic features led to functional responses in habitat selection. At a broad scale, wolves showed evidence of habitat-driven functional responses by exhibiting greater selection for areas near low-vegetation height seismic lines in areas with low densities of anthropogenic features. We highlight the importance of considering landscape heterogeneity and habitat characteristics, and the functional response in habitat selection when investigating seasonal behaviour-based selection patterns. Our results support behaviour in line with search for primary prey during summer and fall, and ease-of-travel during spring, while patterns of selection during winter aligned best with ease-of-travel for the less-industrialized foothills landscape, and with search for primary prey in the more-industrialized boreal landscape. These results highlight that time-sensitive restoration actions on anthropogenic features can affect the probability of overlap between predators and threatened prey within different landscapes.

On this side of the fence: Functional responses to linear landscape features shape the home range of large herbivores

“…The curve in bold represents a global model where all populations-species for a given sex and linear feature were pooled to include the entire continuum of local densities: red curves for females, blue curves for males, with year, month (nested in year), individual identity and population as random factors knowledge about the impact of linear landscape features on animal space use since previous studies mainly focused on predators (e.g. Muhly et al, 2019;Pigeon et al, 2020), or to prey in the narrower context of habitat selection (e.g. Bonnot et al, 2013).…”

“…In addition, the recovery of large carnivores in Europe (Chapron et al, 2014) may also potentially reshape the prey-anthropogenic features relationships. Indeed, functional responses to anthropogenic features have also been found in large carnivores which are increasing their use of these features as they become more common on the landscape (Dickie et al, 2017;McKenzie et al, 2012;Pigeon et al, 2020). In this context, prey species might suffer higher rates of mortality due to predation in areas of higher anthropogenic features (Dabros et al, 2018;Latham et al, 2011;Leblond et al, 2013) and might adapt, accordingly, the way of including such features in their home range when their density increases.…”

“…food resources and shelter in agricultural landscapes for roe deer; Hewison et al, 2001) or due to a higher density of corridors that are used for movement, especially in predators (e.g. seismic lines in black bears Ursus americanus, Tigner et al, 2014; roads or tracks for wolves Canis lupus, James & Stuart-Smith, 2000;Pigeon et al, 2020). In contrast, the dense network of linear landscape features in highly fragmented habitats may be detrimental when these features act as physical and/or behavioural barriers (e.g.…”

“…Holbrook et al, 2019;Matthiopoulos et al, 2011) in connection with the concept initially proposed by Holling (1959) in the context of predator-prey dynamics. In an analogous way, the nature of an individual's response to a given linear feature may vary in relation to the degree of landscape fragmentation, generating another kind of functional response to variation in the density of linear features in their environment (Pigeon et al, 2020). For example, the cognitive processes involved in spatial memory may become costly or inefficient when the linear landscape features used by animals as landmarks are too dense to be memorised (Fagan et al, 2013).…”

“…As an example, the use of anthropogenic linear features by North-American large carnivores varied in relation to their density in the landscape (e.g. Dickie, 2015;Muhly et al, 2019;Pigeon et al, 2020), with fragmented landscapes often benefiting predators in their behavioural arms race with prey (e.g. Dickie et al, 2017;McKenzie et al, 2012).…”